Criminal Procedure

A defendant's request to represent himself may be waived if: A Significant trial proceedings have already taken place. B The defendant is already represented by counsel. C The parties' witness lists have already been submitted. D The jury has already been sworn.

A (A defendant's request to represent himself may be waived if significant trial proceedings have already taken place. In Pennsylvania, a request to proceed pro se is considered untimely, and thus waived, after meaningful proceedings have begun.)

An employee of the state government always received his state paycheck on the last workday of the month. The employee was not a good money manager, and just barely managed to make it from paycheck to paycheck each month. On the second to the last workday of the month, the employee had $45 in his checking account, and, needing to buy a birthday gift for his sister, he wrote a check to a gift boutique for $100. He knew that he would be receiving his paycheck the next day, so he could deposit the paycheck before the check would be sent to the bank. However, unbeknownst to the employee, the state legislature was having a budget impasse. Because the state constitution prohibited any deficit spending, state employees were not paid as usual. Without a paycheck to deposit, the check written to the gift boutique was returned for insufficient funds. The merchant complained to the police, who arrested the employee and charged him under a statute that prohibited "issuing a check knowing that it is drawn against insufficient funds, with intent to defraud the payee of the check." What should be the outcome of the employee's prosecution? A Not guilty, because the employee intended to deposit his paycheck the next day. B Not guilty, because it was reasonable for the employee to expect that he would receive his paycheck as usual. C Guilty, because the employee knew when he wrote the check that he did not have sufficient funds in his account to honor it. D Guilty, because reliance on a future source of income does not vitiate the employee's violation of the statute when he wrote the check.

A (Given that the employee intended to deposit his paycheck before the checks cleared, he lacked the intent to defraud required by the statute. The statute under which the employee is being prosecuted is a variation of the offense of false pretenses. As with false pretenses, the statute requires a specific intent, i.e., an intent to defraud. If the employee intended to deposit sufficient funds to honor the check before it reached his bank, then the employee did not intend to defraud the gift boutique. Thus, the employee lacked the specific intent that is a necessary element of the crime charged. (B) is incorrect because the employee's expectation that he would receive his paycheck as usual need not have been reasonable. Even if such an expectation were unreasonable, the employee would not be guilty if he did not intend to defraud the payees, as required by the statute. (C) is incorrect because it would result in a verdict of guilty without requiring intent to defraud. Knowledge that the check was drawn against insufficient funds is just one element of the statute. The intent to defraud is also required to convict under the applicable statute. (D) also incorrectly assumes that the employee violated the statute merely by knowingly writing a check on insufficient funds. As explained above, the requisite intent to defraud is absent. Thus, there is no "violation" to be vitiated. QUESTION ID: MC131)

State law ____________________ the federal standard and states that a defendant's silence ____________________ be used to impeach his testimony at trial. A Rejects; cannot. B Rejects; can. C Follows; cannot. D Follows; can.

A (Pennsylvania law rejects the federal standard and states that a defendant's silence cannot be used to impeach his testimony at trial. When a suspect is arrested, if he chooses to exercise his Miranda right to remain silent, that silence cannot be used against him if he is later brought to trial. )

School locker searches are ____________________ because students have ____________________ expectation of privacy at school. A Permissible; a limited. B Prohibited; a limited. C Prohibited; a complete. D Permissible; no.

A (School locker searches are permissible because students have a limited expectation of privacy at school. Safety checks of school lockers do not violate Article I, Section 8's elevated privacy standards because a student's privacy interests within the school environment are limited. School locker searches are not prohibited because of the limited expectation of privacy, but students do have at least some expectation of privacy.)

The defendant and the victim got into a minor verbal altercation, concluding with the defendant lightly shoving the victim. The victim lost his balance and struck his head on the pavement, causing serious bodily injury. The defendant was charged with battery, which is defined in the jurisdiction as "purposely or knowingly causing serious bodily injury to another." Should the defendant be convicted of battery? A No, because the defendant did not know that the victim would be seriously injured. B No, because the defendant did not strike a serious blow to the victim. C Yes, because the defendant purposely shoved the victim. D Yes, because the victim suffered serious bodily injury.

A (The defendant should not be convicted of battery. Under the statute's fault standards, a defendant must have acted purposely (i.e., with conscious intent to cause the result) or knowingly (i.e., with knowledge that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause the result) as to the harmful result. The apparent inference to be drawn from the facts is that the defendant did not consciously desire, nor contemplate to a practical certainty, the serious injury to the victim that actually occurred. Had the defendant intended to cause such severe harm, he no doubt would have dealt the victim a strong blow rather than simply giving the victim a light shove. Therefore, as to the nature of the result, the defendant did not act with "purpose" or "knowledge" as those terms are defined in the Model Penal Code and modern criminal codes. (B), while close, is not as good an answer as (A) because it does not address the state of mind issue in the problem. A light shove might be sufficient for a battery as defined under a different set of facts (e.g., if the defendant believes that the victim would fall down stairs with a light shove). (C) is incorrect because it addresses the act but not the result. As defined in this question, battery must not only be committed by a purposeful act, but also be done with a "purposeful" or "knowing" state of mind as to the result. (D) is incorrect for much of the same reason—the state of mind requirement also applies to the result, as discussed above. The injury must have been purposely or knowingly caused, and that concept is not contained within choice (D).)

At the defendant's prosecution for robbery of a drugstore, the main prosecution witness testified that the defendant had asked her to drive him to the town where the drugstore was located. The witness testified that the defendant did not explain his purpose for going to the town, and that he had stopped at a relative's house along the way to pick up a bundle that could have been the sawed-off shotgun used by the robber. On cross-examination, the defendant's attorney asked a number of pointed questions of the witness, implying that the defendant had asked her to drive to the town so that he could visit relatives there and suggesting that the witness had obtained a sawed-off shotgun for use by a confederate. The defendant did not testify on his own behalf. In final argument, the prosecutor called the jury's attention to the two versions of events suggested by the witness's testimony on direct examination and the defense attorney's questions on cross-examination, and then said, "Remember, you only heard one of the two people testify who know what really happened that day." If the defendant is convicted of robbery, will his conviction likely be upheld? A No, because the prosecutor's comment referred to the defendant's failure to testify, a violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege of silence. B No, because under the circumstances the attack on the witness's credibility was not strong enough to permit the prosecutor to mention the defendant's failure to testify in rebuttal. C Yes, because the prosecutor is entitled to comment on the state of the evidence. D Yes, because even if it was error to comment on the defendant's failure to testify, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

A (The defendant's conviction will likely not be upheld because the prosecutor's comment improperly burdened the defendant's assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination. The prosecution is not allowed to comment on the defendant's failure to testify at trial, because the defendant is privileged under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent. (B) is incorrect because no amount of attacks on the credibility of prosecution witnesses will justify such a comment as a rebuttal. (C) is incorrect because the Fifth Amendment privilege outweighs the prosecutor's right to comment on the state of the evidence. (D) is not the best answer even though the harmless error test does apply to improper comments by the prosecution (i.e., the conviction will not be overturned if the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the comments did not affect the outcome of the case). Because there is no real indication as to the strength of the case against the defendant, it is impossible to conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.)

The police, suspecting that the defendant was dealing drugs, observed several people walk up to the defendant's door, knock on his door, and then exchange cash for small packages that the police believed contained drugs. Two uniformed police officers then walked up to the door and knocked. The defendant answered the door, and one police officer asked if they could come in and take a look around. The defendant, believing that he had no other choice but to let the officers inside, agreed. Once inside, they discovered equipment used for making methamphetamine and several tablets of methamphetamine that were sitting on a table covered by a bed sheet. One officer promptly arrested and handcuffed the defendant while the other seized the equipment and tablets. Prior to his trial for the illegal manufacture and possession of methamphetamine, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence as having been illegally seized. Should the motion be granted? A No, because the defendant allowed the police officers to enter his home and look around. B No, because exigent circumstances existed for the warrantless seizure of the evidence. C Yes, because the police should have secured the area and obtained a warrant to seize the evidence. D Yes, because the defendant's consent was not voluntary.

A (The evidence should not be suppressed because the defendant consented. To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, most searches must be pursuant to a warrant. The warrant requirement serves as a check against unfettered police discretion by requiring the police to apply to a neutral magistrate for permission to conduct a search. A search conducted without a warrant will be invalid (and the evidence discovered during the search generally must be excluded from evidence) unless the search and seizure falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. One exception to the warrant requirement is when the police have valid consent to search the premises. The police may conduct a valid warrantless search when they have a voluntary consent to do so. Knowledge of the right to withhold consent, while a factor to be considered, is not a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent. In the instant case, there are no facts that indicate that the police put any undue pressure on the defendant to consent to the search. Although it is a factor to be considered in determining whether the consent was voluntary, the defendant's subjective mistake about being able to withhold consent would probably not, by itself, be sufficient to deem the consent involuntary. As a result, (A) is the correct answer, and (D) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect. The Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no general "emergency" exception to the warrant requirement, although the police may seize "evanescent" evidence in certain circumstances. That said, there is no indication that evidence here would disappear, as it seems that the defendant's operation was ongoing, thus giving the police time to get a warrant. (C) is incorrect because the police may conduct a warrantless search with the defendant's permission, as they did in this question.)

Which of the following about the admissibility of blood alcohol data is true? A A blood alcohol test obtained without a warrant when there is a suspicion of DUI is admissible. B Any blood alcohol test obtained by medical personnel is admissible. C A warrant is required in order for any blood alcohol tests to be admissible. D If a person cannot consent to a blood alcohol test, the results are inadmissible if he is charged with DUI.

A (Under Pennsylvania statute, a blood alcohol test obtained without a warrant when there is a suspicion of DUI is admissible. It is not true that any blood alcohol test obtained by medical personnel is admissible; blood taken specifically for medical purposes cannot be used for blood alcohol testing without a warrant. However, because of the statute for DUI cases, it is not true that a warrant is required for any blood alcohol tests to be admissible. Additionally, even if a person is unable to consent to the blood alcohol test, the results are admissible if the test was ordered in accordance with the statute because of a suspected DUI offense.)

Which of the following does NOT violate the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure as long as it is an organized systematic program? A School locker search. B Drunk driving roadblock. C School drug testing. D Canine sniffs.

B (A drunk driving roadblock does not violate Pennsylvania's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure as long as it is an organized systematic program. However, these sobriety checkpoints must meet statutory guidelines and officers do not have free, unchecked discretion when determining which vehicles are stopped at the roadblock. While students do not have a complete expectation of privacy, full searches of school lockers are not permitted; "drug-sniffing" dogs can be used for an exterior search, which is less intrusive. School drug testing as a condition for participation in extracurricular activities is not permissible under Pennsylvania law. Canine sniffs are not prohibited and do not need to be part of a systematic program, but do need to be supported by probable cause (for sniff of a person) or reasonable suspicion (for canine search of a place).)

The fact that the defendant committed a particular act is sufficient for the jury to infer that he acted with: A Malice B General intent C Specific intent D Negligence

B (A jury can infer the required general intent merely from the doing of the act. It is not necessary that evidence specifically proving the general intent be offered by the prosecution. However, a jury cannot infer that the defendant acted with specific intent by the doing of the act. (That said, the manner in which an act is done may provide circumstantial evidence that the defendant acted with specific intent.) Malice is established by showing that the defendant recklessly disregarded an obvious or high risk that a particular harmful result would occur. Negligence is established by showing that the defendant failed to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances existed or a result would follow, and such failure constituted a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances.)

The Model Penal Code defines acting purposefully as when: A The defendant is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances exist B It is the defendant's conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result C The defendant consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation D The defendant fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances

B (A person acts purposefully when it is his conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result. A person acts negligently when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances. A person acts knowingly when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances exist. A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation. Recklessness is one of the four categories into which the Model Penal Code classifies the mental component of a criminal offense (i.e., the element of fault).)

Under the Model Penal Code, consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk indicates a person acted __________. A knowingly B recklessly C purposefully D negligently

B (A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation. Recklessness is one of the four categories into which the Model Penal Code classifies the mental component of a criminal offense (i.e., the element of fault). A person acts purposefully when it is his conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result. A person acts knowingly when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances exist. A person acts negligently when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances.)

If more than _______ months' imprisonment is authorized, the offense is considered "serious" for determining whether a defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial. A nine B six C three D twelve

B (An offense is considered serious, making a jury trial a constitutional right, when more than six months' imprisonment is authorized.)

Anticipatory search warrants are permissible, as long as the factual statement in the affidavit: A Is based on probable cause. B Is reliable and probative. C Is based on reasonable suspicion. D Merely specifies all information that is available.

B (Anticipatory search warrants, which are warrants based on an affidavit indicating that evidence will be found at the place to be searched some time in the future, are permissible as long as the factual statement in the affidavit is reliable and probative with respect to the likelihood that evidence will be found in the place searched when the warrant is executed. This requirement is more stringent than that of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. The standard of mere specification of all information that is available is the federal standard for the issuance of warrants in general, which, in Pennsylvania, is not sufficient for anticipatory search warrants or warrants in general.)

In order to be guilty of common law burglary, one must break and enter a dwelling with: response - correct A Recklessness about the consequences that could occur if someone was inside the home B The specific intent to commit a felony therein C Knowledge that one lacks authority to enter the dwelling D No particular mental state; the act of breaking and entering is sufficient to establish burglary

B (Burglary is a specific intent crime. A specific intent crime requires the doing of the criminal act with a specific intent or objective. The common law definition of burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with the intent of committing a felony therein. Because burglary requires the intent to commit a felony at the time of the entering, it is a specific intent crime.)

Which of the following is most likely to be found to be a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment? A A police officer approaches a suspect, orders the suspect to stop, and the suspect runs. B A police officer approaches a suspect and draws her revolver, orders the suspect to stop, and the suspect complies. C A police officer turns on his squad car's overhead lights as the squad approaches a suspect, and the suspect runs. D A police officer boards a bus, asks a suspect for identification and consent to search his luggage, and the suspect agrees.

B (If a police officer approaches a suspect and draws her revolver, orders the suspect to stop, and the suspect complies, this will most likely be found to constitute a seizure. For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a seizure occurs when a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave. The courts consider the totality of the circumstances in making this determination. If a police officer turns on his squad car's overhead lights as the squad approaches a suspect and the suspect runs, a court will not likely find that there was a seizure. A seizure requires a physical application of force (e.g., handcuffing or otherwise subduing a person) or submission to an officer's show of force. If a police officer approaches a suspect, orders the suspect to stop, and the suspect runs, there is no application of force and no submission to the show of force, which would require, at the least, stopping in response to the officer's order. Therefore, it is unlikely that a court would find a seizure under the Fourth Amendment in these circumstances. If a police officer boards a bus, asks a suspect for identification and consent to search his luggage, and the suspect agrees, a court would not likely find a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. Police officers may ask people for permission to search and for identification; such requests do not involve the physical application of force or submission to a show of force.)

Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when: A Opening statements begin B The jury is empaneled and sworn C The first witness is sworn D The judge delivers jury instructions

B (Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn. Under the Fifth Amendment right to be free of double jeopardy, a defendant may not be retried for the same offense once jeopardy has attached. Jeopardy does not attach in a jury trial when the first witness is sworn. This is when jeopardy attaches in a bench trial, not in a jury trial. By the time opening statements begin or the judge delivers jury instructions, jeopardy has already attached.)

Miranda warnings __________ need to be given before a suspect is interrogated by a civilian working for the police. A Always B May C Never

B (Miranda warnings may need to be given, depending on whether the suspect knows this person is employed by the) police. Miranda generally applies only to interrogation by the publicly paid police. It does not apply where interrogation is by an informant who the defendant does not know is working for the police. The rationale is that the warnings are intended to offset the coercive nature of police-dominated interrogation, and if the defendant does not know that he is being interrogated by the police, there is no coercive atmosphere to offset.)

There is an expectation of privacy to what information regarding bank accounts? A All information associated with a depositor's bank account. B A depositor's bank records. C A depositor's name and address. D There is no expectation of privacy in any information associated with a depositor's bank account.

B (Pennsylvania finds that there is an expectation of privacy in a depositor's bank records. Authorities cannot gain access to the depositor's bank records without showing probable cause. However, there is no expectation of privacy to nonfinancial personal information on a bank account, such as a depositor's name and address. The expectation of privacy only extends to the financial information associated with a bank account, so not all information associated with a depositor's bank account will be available to authorities.)

Which of the following are specific intent crimes? A False imprisonment, kidnapping, and battery B Solicitation, assault, and burglary C Assault, battery, and first degree murder D Larceny, robbery, and arson

B (Solicitation, assault (attempted battery type) and burglary are specific intent crimes. Solicitation requires the intent to have the person solicited commit the crime. The attempted battery type of assault, like all attempt crimes, requires the specific intent to commit the crime attempted. Burglary requires the specific intent to commit a felony at the time of entry into the dwelling of another. Assault (attempted battery type) is a specific intent crime. First degree murder is a specific intent crime, in that it requires the intent to kill after premeditation and deliberation. However, battery is a general intent crime. False imprisonment, kidnapping, and battery are all general intent crimes. Larceny and robbery are both specific intent crimes that require the intent to permanently deprive another person of his interest in the property taken. However, arson is a malice crime.)

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies __________. A only at interrogations performed by one known to be a government agent B only after adversary judicial proceedings have begun C whenever an informant is placed in the defendant's cell D whenever a defendant gives a blood sample

B (The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies only after adversary judicial proceedings have begun (e.g., formal charges have been filed). It is not true that the Sixth Amendment applies whenever an informant is placed in the defendant's cell. It applies when an informant is placed in a defendant's cell after adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated. But there is no Sixth Amendment violation just because an informant is placed in the defendant's cell after charges are filed. There is a violation only if the informant does something designed to elicit incriminating remarks. The choice providing that the Sixth Amendment applies only at interrogations performed by one known to be a government agent is too limiting to be correct. A limitation like this one applies to Miranda warnings. The warnings must be given before interrogation by one known to be a government agent in order to offset the coercive nature of police interrogation. A similar rule does not apply under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to all post-charge interrogations, whether or not the defendant knows he is speaking to a government informant. Finally, the blood sample choice is incorrect. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies at critical stages of a criminal prosecution after formal proceedings have begun, and the taking of a blood sample is not a critical stage.)

For Fourth Amendment purposes, which of the following people is least likely to be found to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched? A A person who lives in the premises that were searched but does not own it. B A person who came to the premises that were searched to buy illegal drugs. C A person who owns the premises that were searched but does not live there. D A person who was an overnight guest at the place searched.

B (The Supreme Court has held that a person who was on the premises that were searched to buy illegal drugs does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises. A claim that a search violated the Fourth Amendment can be raised only by a person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. The Supreme Court has held that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy any time she owns the place that was searched or has a right to possession of it; whether or not she lives there would not affect this interest. The Court has also held that if the place searched is the person's home, then she has a reasonable expectation of privacy, regardless if she owned or had a right to possess it. Finally, the Supreme Court has held that an overnight guest at the place searched also has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises for Fourth Amendment purposes.)

A thief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. After making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. A short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. He fell to the ground and severely injured his back. The thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. A statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." The thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. After a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. If he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? A Affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. B Affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. C Reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. D Reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.

B (The court should affirm the thief's conviction. Crimes imposing a mens rea of malice generally do not require the proof of intent that specific intent crimes require. It is sufficient if the defendant recklessly disregarded an obvious or high risk that the particular harmful result would occur. Here, the facts presented were sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that the thief knew of the probability that the ladder would collapse without the braces when someone climbed down it, and acted in reckless disregard of that risk by removing the braces. (A) is incorrect because the fact that the thief was committing larceny when he removed the braces does not establish malice for purposes of the malicious injury charge. Even if his conduct were otherwise legal, he could be liable for that charge if he acted with reckless disregard of the high risk of injury. (C) is incorrect because, as discussed above, it is generally not necessary to show an intent to injure for a crime requiring a mens rea of malice; reckless disregard of an obvious risk will usually suffice. (D) is incorrect because crimes requiring a mens rea of malice do not refer to malice in the dictionary sense; a showing of ill will or hatred of the victim is not required.)

A police officer learned from a reliable informant that a major drug deal was about to take place at a local restaurant. The officer obtained a search warrant for the restaurant and arrived with other uniformed officers to search the premises. While conducting the search, the officer searched several of the customers. While searching one of the restaurant's regular customers, the officer felt an object in the customer's pocket and pulled out a container filled with heroin. The customer was arrested and later convicted of possession of heroin. A state statute permits officers executing a search warrant to search persons on the premises if the officers reasonably expect danger to themselves or a risk of disposal or concealment of anything described in the warrant. If the customer challenges his conviction on the ground that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, will he be successful? A Yes, because the statute is vague and overbroad. B Yes, because his presence in the place to be searched by the police does not negate the requirement of probable cause. C No, because the search was conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant. D No, because the search was authorized by statute.

B (The customer will be successful. To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, most searches must be pursuant to a warrant. The warrant must describe with reasonable precision the place to be searched and the items to be seized. A search warrant does not authorize the police to search persons found on the premises who are not named in the warrant. In Ybarra v. Illinois (1979), a case based on similar facts, the Supreme Court held that "each patron of the tavern had an individual right to be free of unreasonable searches, and presence at a location subject to search does not negate the requirement of probable cause to search the person present." (A) is incorrect because the validity of the statute is not the primary issue. Even in the absence of a statute, the search of the customer by the officer violated the customer's Fourth Amendment rights. (C) is incorrect because, as discussed above, the search warrant did not override the customer's Fourth Amendment rights. While the police would be able to search a person discovered on the premises for whom they had probable cause to arrest, because the search would be incident to a lawful arrest, here they searched the customer prior to an arrest and without probable cause. (D) is irrelevant; if a search is unconstitutional, it does not matter that it was authorized by statute. To the extent that the statute authorizes a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, it is unconstitutional.)

Acting pursuant to a valid search warrant, the police entered and searched the defendant's garage and discovered a cardboard box containing cocaine in the rafters storage area. The box was securely taped and bore a freight label addressed to the defendant's friend. At his trial for violation of the jurisdiction's statute making it a felony to knowingly possess cocaine, the defendant testified that his friend had brought him the package a week before it was seized by the police, telling him that he needed to store it in the defendant's garage. The defendant also testified that he had not asked the friend what it contained. What additional facts must the prosecution prove to establish the defendant's liability for the charged felony? A That he knew or believed that the box contained cocaine and had moved or handled the box. B That he knew or believed that the box contained cocaine. C That he should have known that the box contained cocaine and had moved or handled the box. D No additional facts.

B (The defendant should be found guilty of the charged felony if he knew or believed that the box contained cocaine. The defendant is being tried for "knowingly" possessing cocaine. A person does not act knowingly unless he is aware that his conduct is of the proscribed nature or that the proscribed circumstances exist. Thus, the defendant could not have acted knowingly unless he knew or believed that the box contained cocaine. (A) is incorrect because criminal statutes that penalize the possession of contraband generally require only that the defendant have control of the item for a long enough period to have had an opportunity to terminate the possession. Thus, the defendant need not have moved or handled the box. (C) is incorrect for the same reason as (A), and also because the defendant's failure to know when he should have known would constitute negligence—failure to be aware of a substantial risk that prohibited results will follow or that circumstances exist—and negligence is not sufficient to establish knowledge. Note, however, that a defendant may not consciously avoid learning the true nature of the item possessed; knowledge may be inferred when the defendant is aware of a high probability of the true nature of the item and deliberately avoids learning the truth. (D) is incorrect because, as discussed above, the statute requires that the defendant knew or believed that the box contained cocaine.)

Two friends entered a bar looking to get money to pay off a loan shark, but with no plan how to do so. They struck up conversations with two women. The first friend left the bar, having induced one of the women to return home with him. Once in his house, the first friend told the woman that she would not be allowed to leave unless she gave him all of her money. Fearing for her safety, the woman gave him all of the cash she had in her possession. Meanwhile, the second friend remaining at the bar noticed that the other woman left her credit card on the counter. When the woman looked away, the friend picked up the credit card and put it into his pocket. Shortly thereafter, the woman realized her card was gone and accused the man of taking it. The man pretended to be insulted, slapped the victim, and went off with the credit card in his pocket. Which of the two friends can be convicted for common law robbery? A Both can be convicted. B The first friend can be convicted, but the second cannot be convicted. C The second friend can be convicted, but the first cannot be convicted. D Neither of the two friends can be convicted of robbery.

B (The first friend can be convicted of common law robbery, but the second cannot be convicted. Robbery is the taking and carrying away of the personal property of another from the other's person or presence by force or intimidation. In the instant case, the first friend committed a robbery when he threatened the woman and told her that she could not leave without giving him all of her money. The only issue would be whether the asportation element is satisfied. However, the asportation element is satisfied by any slight moving, and it is likely that the first friend moved the money at some point during the robbery. Thus, a jury could find the first friend guilty of robbery. This makes (C) and (D) wrong answer choices. In the case of the second friend, however, a conviction for robbery is unlikely. Although a close call, the taking or retention of the property was not by force or intimidation in the second case. The crime against the property was already completed when the man slapped the victim. Furthermore, the slap was not to prevent the woman from physically taking the credit card back; rather, it was a ruse used to deflect the accusation that the second friend took the credit card. Thus, (A) is wrong, and this provides a second reason why (C) is incorrect.)

With regard to the crime of robbery, which of the following statements is true? A The property must be taken from the victim's person. B The force or threats of force may be used to retain possession immediately after such possession has been accomplished. C If threats of immediate death or serious physical injury are used, they must be threats only to the robbery victim. D If intimidation is used, a threat to destroy the victim's dwelling house is insufficient.

B (The force or threats may be used either to gain possession of the property or to retain possession immediately after such possession has been accomplished. If force is used, it must be sufficient to overcome the victim's resistance. If threats of immediate death or serious physical injury are used, they must be threats to the victim, a member of her family, a relative, or a person in her presence at the time. The property must be taken from the victim's person or presence. "Presence" means some location reasonably close to the victim, but it need not be taken from the victim's person. Property in other rooms of the house in which the victim is located is in her "presence." A threat to do damage to property will not suffice—with the exception of a threat to destroy the victim's dwelling house.)

A man was driving very erratically when he was stopped by state troopers and arrested for drunk driving. He was advised of his constitutional rights and elected to remain silent. At trial for his drunk driving charge, the man testified in his own defense, stating that he had just left his doctor's office and had been administered medication without being told that it would seriously and immediately hamper his coordination. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked whether the defendant just made up this medication story after the fact to evade legitimate liability for driving while intoxicated and the man said he had not. The prosecutor then asked why the defendant had not told the arresting officer about the medication, and defense counsel objects. The trial court should rule that the question is: A Improper, because to require the defense to inform the prosecution of defendant's testimony prior to trial would be unconstitutional pretrial discovery. B Improper, because use of defendant's post-arrest silence violates his right to due process of law. C Proper, because defendant's silence was not used as direct evidence but only for impeachment on cross-examination. D Proper, because defendant's post-arrest silence is a prior inconsistent statement which is admissible to show recent fabrication.

B (The question was improper because it effectively comments on the defendant's post-arrest silence and thus violates his right to due process of law. A prosecutor may not comment on the defendant's silence after being arrested and receiving Miranda warnings. The warnings carry an implicit assurance that silence will carry no penalty. Thus, the defendant's invocation of his right to remain silent cannot be used as evidence against him at trial, nor can he be questioned or cross-examined about his decision to remain silent, even if he testifies at trial. Thus, (B) is the correct answer, and (C) is wrong. (Distinguish: If the defendant fails to disclose potential exculpatory evidence to the police after waiving his right to remain silent, he may be cross-examined at trial on that failure in an effort to show that it is a recent fabrication. In this case, however, the defendant invoked his right to remain silent.) (A) is wrong; the question is improper, but not because it would be unconstitutional pretrial discovery. (D) is also wrong. Although statements made without proper Miranda warnings can sometimes be used to impeach, the defendant's silence would not be classified as a prior statement.)

The right to be free of double jeopardy for the same offense arises from __________. A the Fourth Amendment B the Fifth Amendment C the First Amendment D the Sixth Amendment

B (The right to be free of double jeopardy derives from the Fifth Amendment and has been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. Under this right, once jeopardy attaches, the defendant may not be retried for the same offense. The right to be free of double jeopardy does not arise from the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, or the Sixth Amendment. It arises from the Fifth Amendment.)

Miranda warnings are required as a prerequisite to the admissibility of confessions resulting from custodial police interrogation. Which of the following statements is true about the interrogation requirement under Miranda? A Spontaneous statements violate Miranda if made before Miranda warnings are given. B The term "interrogation" includes any police tactic that officers should know is likely to elicit an incriminating response. C Allowing a suspect to talk to his wife in the presence of the police can constitute interrogation. D Routine booking questions usually will be considered interrogation.

B (The term "interrogation" includes any police tactic that officers should know is likely to elicit an incriminating response. It is not limited to direct questioning. The Supreme Court has held that for purposes of Miranda, allowing a suspect to talk to his wife in the presence of the police DOES NOT constitute interrogation. The Supreme Court has also held that routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation (because information about a suspect's name or address usually is not incriminating). Finally, if a spontaneous statement is made before Miranda warnings are given, there is no Miranda violation. Spontaneous statements are statements not made in response to any police conduct. Where the suspect blurts out information upon seeing the police, there is no interrogation.)

The warnings required under Miranda ________ include that the detainee has the right to __________. A Do not; remain silent B Do not; be informed of the charges against him C Do; confront witnesses against him D Do; an impartial decisionmaker

B (The warnings required under Miranda do not include that the detainee has a right to be informed of the charges against him. Also, it is not true that the warnings must include that the detainee has the right to an impartial decisionmaker. While such a right exists under the Due Process Clause, Miranda does not require that detainees be informed of that right. Nor is it true that the warnings must include that the detainee has the right to confront witnesses against him. While there is such a right under the Sixth Amendment, Miranda does not require that detainees be informed of that right. The warnings required under Miranda do require that the warnings inform the detainee of the right to remain silent. The full warnings must inform the detainee that: (i) He has the right to remain silent; (ii) Anything he says can be used against him in court; (iii) He has the right to the presence of an attorney; and (iv) If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him if he so desires. Note that Miranda warnings do not need to be given verbatim, as long as the substance of the warning is there.)

In a criminal trial, what is the minimum number of jurors allowed under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? A Nine B Six C Twelve D Seven

B (There must be at least six jurors to satisfy the right to a jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.)

To protect against unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to a general warrant, no warrant will be issued without: A Specification of all information that is available. B Actual reasonable particularity. C Absolute specificity as to the suspect being arrested or the premises being searched and the contraband to be obtained. D A limited general description of the suspect being arrested or the premises being searched and the contraband to be obtained.

B (To protect against unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to a general warrant, Pennsylvania law states that no warrant will be issued without actual reasonable particularity. This provision requires more specificity than the federal requirement in the Fourth Amendment, mere specification of all information that is available. Absolute specificity is not required, but a warrant must contain more than a limited general description.)

Which of the following statements is true with regard to the execution of a search warrant? A A third party may never accompany the police when executing the warrant in a home. B The police need not always knock and announce their presence before entering a home. C Private citizens may execute the warrant. D Any items seized must be specified in the warrant.

B (When executing a warrant, the police do not need to always knock and announce their presence before entering a home. Usually, the police must knock and announce their authority and purpose and await admittance for a reasonable time or be refused admittance before using force to enter. However, no announcement needs to be made if the police reasonably suspect that knocking and announcing would be dangerous or futile or inhibit the investigation. Private citizens may NOT execute a warrant. Only the police may execute a warrant. A third party MAY be permitted to accompany the police when executing a warrant in a home. Typically the police may not be accompanied by the media or a third party. However, a third party may accompany the police if the third party is there to aid in executing the warrant, for example to identify stolen property that might be found in the home. It is not true that any items seized must be specified in the warrant. When executing a warrant, the police may seize any contraband or fruits or instrumentalities of a crime that they discover, regardless of whether they are specified in the warrant.)

Which of the following statements regarding speedy trials is correct? A Delays caused by counsel assigned by the court to the defendant should ordinarily be attributed to the state. B One factor in determining whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated is whether the defendant asserted his right. C The remedy for a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial is dismissal without prejudice. D A defendant is entitled to speedy trial relief for the period between the dismissal of charges and later refiling.

B (Whether a defendant asserted his right is one factor in determining whether the defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated. The determination is made by an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, and the following factors should be considered: (i) length of the delay, (ii) reason for the delay, (iii) whether the defendant asserted his right, and (iv) prejudice to the defendant. The remedy for a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial is dismissal with prejudice. Delays caused by counsel assigned by the court to the defendant should ordinarily be attributed to the defendant and NOT to the state. A defendant is NOT entitled to speedy trial relief for the period between the dismissal of charges and later refiling. )

Which of the following statements is true regarding a detainee's Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda? A All doubts about a request for counsel are construed in favor of the detainee. B The right applies only at custodial interrogations by the police or one known to be an agent of the police. C The police may question the detainee about an unrelated crime if they scrupulously honor the request by waiting a few hours and rewarning the defendant before the new questioning begins. D A detainee cannot waive the right to counsel in the absence of counsel.

B (he Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda applies only to custodial interrogations by the police or one known to be an agent of the police. The purpose of the rule is to protect the right against self-incrimination by preventing the police from badgering a suspect until he talks. The warnings are intended to offset the coercive atmosphere of custodial police interrogation, and so the right does not apply when the suspect is not in custody or is not being questioned by a police officer or one known by the suspect to be an agent of the police. If a detainee invokes his Miranda right to counsel, the police may NOT question him about an unrelated crime. This is different from the rule for when the detainee merely invokes his right to remain silent, in which instance the police may question about a different crime if they scrupulously honor the request. It is not true that all doubts about a request for counsel are construed in favor of the detainee. A request for counsel must be unambiguous and specific. Neither is it true that a detainee cannot waive the right to counsel in the absence of counsel. A waiver will be valid if it was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.)

Which of the following is NOT a way to establish automatic standing to challenge a search and seizure? A The person has a possessory interest in the evidence improperly seized. B The person was present at the time of the search. C The person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises searched. D The possession of the seized property is an essential element of the prosecution's case.

C (A person showing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises searched is not a way to establish automatic standing to challenge a search and seizure. Proving expectation of privacy is the other required element to challenge a warrantless search, but it is a separate issue from standing. A person can establish standing to challenge a search and seizure if he was present at the time of the search, if he has a possessory interest in the evidence improperly seized, or if possession is an essential element of the prosecution's case (meaning if the defendant was charged with possession of the item improperly seized, he can automatically challenge admissibility of the evidence, which is the sole basis of the case against him). Lastly, a person could show that he had a proprietary interest in the premises searched, meaning that he is the registered owner.)

A man and a woman were arrested and charged with conspiring to blow up a federal government building. After being given Miranda warnings, they were questioned separately and each of them gave a written confession. The confessions interlocked with each other, implicating both of the defendants as being involved in every stage of the conspiracy. Subsequently, the woman attempted to retract her confession, claiming that it was false. At a preliminary hearing, the judge rejected her claim. Both defendants were tried together, and the prosecutor introduced both confessions into evidence. At trial, the woman testified that she was not involved in any conspiracy and that her confession was fabricated. Both defendants were found guilty by the jury. The woman challenges her conviction on appeal because of the admission of the man's confession. If the woman succeeds, what is the likely reason? A The man's confession was more incriminatory to her than her own confession. B The jury was not instructed to consider the man's confession as evidence only of his guilt and not of the woman's. C The man refused to testify at trial and therefore was not subject to cross-examination regarding his confession. D The man testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination but denied making the confession attributed to him.

C (If the woman prevails in her challenge to the admission of the man's confession, it will be because the man could not be cross-examined regarding his confession. Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the right to confront adverse witnesses at trial. If two persons are tried together and one has given a confession that implicates the other, the right of confrontation generally prohibits the use of that statement because the other defendant cannot compel the confessing co-defendant to take the stand for cross-examination. A co-defendant's confession is inadmissible even when it interlocks with the defendant's own confession, which is admitted. If the man refused to take the stand and subject himself to cross-examination, his confession was not properly admitted because it violated the woman's Confrontation Clause rights. (A) is incorrect because the fact that the man's confession incriminates the woman more than her own confession is not relevant. Just the interlocking nature of the man's confession with the woman's confession makes it more damaging by making it harder for the woman to claim that her confession was false. (B) is incorrect because the Supreme Court has held that instructing the jury to consider the confession only as going to the guilt of the confessing defendant is inadequate to avoid Confrontation Clause problems, because the risk that the jury will not follow the limiting instructions is too great in this context. (D) is incorrect. Confessions of a co-defendant may be admitted if (i) all portions referring to the other defendant can be eliminated (so that there is no indication of that defendant's involvement), (ii) the confessing defendant takes the stand and subjects himself to cross-examination regarding the truth or falsity of the statement, or (iii) the confession of the nontestifying co-defendant is being used to rebut the defendant's claim that his confession was obtained coercively, and the jury is instructed as to that purpose. Even if the co-defendant denies ever having made the confession, as stated in choice (D), the opportunity at trial to cross-examine the co-defendant satisfies the Confrontation Clause.)

Which of the following is NOT permitted because it violates the reasonable expectation of privacy set forth in the state's constitution? A Drunk driving roadblocks. B School locker searches. C Surveillance in the home. D Surveillance of telephone conversations.

C (Surveillance in the home is not permitted in Pennsylvania because it violates the reasonable expectation of privacy set forth in the state's constitution. An informant cannot wear a wire to record conversations in a suspect's home and transmit the recordings back to the police because there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's own home. Drunk driving roadblocks, school locker searches, and surveillance of telephone conversations are all permitted in Pennsylvania, because these are cases in which Pennsylvania has adopted the federal minimum.)

A defendant was convicted after a jury trial of violation of federal statutes prohibiting the sale of automatic weapons to foreign nationals. It was established at trial that the defendant had purchased a number of stolen United States Army heavy machine guns and attempted to ship them abroad. The trial court expressly based its imposition of the maximum possible sentence for the conviction on the defendant's refusal to reveal the names of the persons from whom he purchased the stolen weapons. His counsel argues that this consideration is reversible error. If the defendant appeals the sentence imposed, what should the appeals court do? A Reverse the trial court, because the consideration of the defendant's silence violates his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. B Reverse the trial court, because the consideration of collateral circumstances in sentencing violates his due process rights. C Affirm the trial court, because the right to remain silent granted by the Fifth Amendment does not include the right to protect others from incrimination. D Affirm the trial court, because citizens must report violations of the criminal statutes.

C (The appeals court should affirm the trial court because the right to remain silent does not include the right to protect others from incrimination. The defendant was not privileged to refuse revealing the names of the stolen weapon sellers. The United States Supreme Court held, in Roberts v. United States (1980), that a defendant's refusal to cooperate with an investigation of the criminal conspiracy of which he was a member may properly be considered in imposing sentence. This is because the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent does not afford a privilege to refuse to incriminate others. (C) is therefore correct and (A) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect because the court's consideration of the defendant's refusal to cooperate does not violate due process. (D) is not an accurate statement of the law.)

Which of the following federal exceptions is rejected in Pennsylvania because of the state's heightened expectation of privacy? A Plain view exception to the warrant requirement. B Automobile exception to the warrant requirement. C Good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. D Unreliable ear exception to wiretapping and eavesdropping.

C (The good faith exception to the warrant requirement is rejected in Pennsylvania because of the heightened expectation of privacy notion from Article I, Section 8 of the state's constitution.)

A defendant going to trial for the felony of aggravated battery filed a motion to have the court seat a jury with only five members. He stated that five was his lucky number and that he would be willing to sign any release to ensure a jury of five. Should the judge grant the defendant's motion to impanel a jury of five members? A Yes, the number of jurors is up to the defendant. B Yes, the number of jurors is typically six, but five is permitted as long as the verdict is unanimous. C No, the Constitution requires at least six jurors. D No, the number of jurors is up to the judge, and the defendant does not have any say in the matter.

C (The judge should not grant the defendant's motion. The Constitution requires at least six jurors. There is no constitutional right to a jury of 12, but there must be at least six jurors to satisfy the right to jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. [Ballew v. Georgia (1978)] (A) is incorrect because, even were a defendant to waive his right to a jury of six, the judge could not constitutionally impanel such a jury. (B) is incorrect because, as stated above, at least six jurors are required by the Constitution. Note also that six-person juries must be unanimous, although 12-person juries need not be. [Burch v. Louisiana (1979)] (D) is incorrect because the number of jurors is not up to the judge in the sense that a judge may not waive the six-juror minimum. In most jurisdictions, the number of jurors (above six) is established by statute or court rule, not by the judge.)

The police received information linking a man to drug trafficking and went to the man's residence, where he lived with his mother. The police found the mother at home, and she told them that her son was not expected back until later. The police informed the mother that they suspected the man of selling drugs and asked if they could search his room. She replied, "I'm finished with that no-good bum; not only is he into drugs, but he has been stealing my money to pay for them, and all the time I'm making his bed and fixing his food. You can search his room. He likes to keep his private stuff under his pillow. I hope he goes to jail." The police searched the man's room and discovered a quantity of marijuana under the pillow of his bed. If before trial the man's attorney moves to suppress the marijuana on grounds that the search was invalid, should the court grant the motion? A Yes, because the man had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched, and the police did not have a warrant. B Yes, because the man's mother's consent was given at a time when police knew her interests were in conflict with the man's. C No, because the man's mother had the authority to consent to the search of his room. D No, because with the mother's statement the police had probable cause to search the room.

C (The man's motion to suppress should be denied because his mother had authority to consent to the search of his room. A search of a residence can be based on the voluntary consent of the occupant. Where a parent has general access to a room occupied by a son or daughter, the parent can give a valid consent to a general search of the room even if the son or daughter is an adult. The facts in the question indicate that the man's mother had general access to his room ("and all the time I'm making his bed"). Therefore, her consent is valid and eliminates the need for probable cause and a warrant. (A) is wrong. The man had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched, but the consent of his mother eliminated the need for a warrant. (B) is wrong. At one time, some courts required an "amicable relationship" between the parties before the police could rely on a third party's consent. The "amicable relationship requirement" is no longer recognized by the courts. (D) is not a good answer. It is true that with the mother's statement the police had probable cause to search the man's room. However, probable cause alone would not validate the search. The police would need probable cause plus a warrant or a valid consent. In this question the search would have to be based on consent.)

A defendant held up a gasoline station. During the robbery, he shot and killed a customer who attempted to apprehend him. The defendant was prosecuted for premeditated murder and convicted. Thereafter, he was indicted for armed robbery of the station. Before the trial, his attorney moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that further proceedings were unconstitutional because of the defendant's prior conviction. Should the motion to dismiss be granted? A Yes, because once the defendant was convicted on any of the charges arising out of the robbery, the prosecution was constitutionally estopped from proceeding against the defendant on any charge stemming from the same transaction. B Yes, because the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a subsequent trial on what is essentially a lesser included offense. C No, because there is no constitutional requirement that all known charges against a defendant be brought in the same prosecution. D No, because estoppel does not apply when a defendant is charged with violating two different statutes.

C (The motion to dismiss should be denied. For purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, two crimes do not constitute the "same offense" if each crime requires proof of an additional element that the other crime does not require, even though some of the same facts may be necessary to prove both crimes. Here, even though the same facts are involved for both crimes, the robbery charge requires proof of a taking by force but not a death, while the murder charge requires proof of a death but not of a taking of property. Thus, (C) is correct and (A) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect because armed robbery is not a lesser included offense of premeditated murder. (D) is incorrect because the prosecution would be estopped if violation of one statute constituted a lesser included offense of the other statute.)

The president of a private college received a report that there was a great deal of cocaine use occurring on the second floor of the dormitory. The president persuaded the school security officers to place several concealed microphones in the second-floor student lounge. Conversations occurring in the lounge were monitored by the security officers and they recorded a conversation in which a sophomore at the college offered to sell cocaine to a freshman. A tape of the conversation was taken to the local police, who played it for a local judge. The judge issued a warrant to search the sophomore's room. While searching the room the police discovered a large amount of cocaine and the sophomore was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of narcotics. His attorney moved to prevent the introduction of the cocaine into evidence. Will the motion most likely be granted? A Yes, because the sophomore's privacy was unreasonably invaded. B Yes, because the electronic surveillance was "fundamentally unfair." C No, because the police properly obtained a search warrant. D No, because the college president was acting on behalf of the college population in general.

C (The motion to suppress should be denied because a valid search warrant was obtained. A search warrant must be based on probable cause. Here, there was sufficient information for a judge to conclude that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found in the sophomore's room. Thus, the warrant was properly obtained. (A) is wrong because the sophomore had only a limited expectation of privacy in a dormitory's lounge. Also, even if his privacy had been invaded, any invasion here was done by private persons, not the state, and thus would not prevent introduction of the evidence. (B) is wrong because it is untrue as a matter of law. (D) is wrong because it is not a sufficient basis to deny the sophomore's motion. It is irrelevant that the college president acted on behalf of the college population.)

A woman was arrested outside of a house shortly after she had broken in and stolen some jewelry. She was indicted for larceny and later for burglary. She was tried on the larceny indictment and convicted. Thereafter, she was brought to trial on the burglary indictment. Relying on the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, the woman moves to dismiss the indictment. Should the motion be granted? A Yes, because the Double Jeopardy Clause requires that all offenses arising out of the same transaction be adjudicated in the same trial. B Yes, because the Double Jeopardy Clause allows the imposition of separate sentences for separate offenses occurring during the same criminal episode only if the offenses are tried together. C No, because larceny and burglary are offenses that may constitutionally be tried and punished separately, even if they arise out of the same transaction, because each requires proof of a fact that the other does not. D No, because the only protection double jeopardy affords to a defendant charged with multiple counts is under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

C (The woman's motion should be denied because the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the second prosecution. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides criminal defendants with the right to be free of double jeopardy for the same offense. However, two crimes do not constitute the same offense if each crime requires proof of an additional element that the other crime does not require, even though some of the same facts may be necessary to prove both crimes. [Blockburger v. United States (1932)] Here, larceny requires a taking and carrying away of the property of another, which burglary does not require, and burglary requires a breaking and entry, which larceny does not require. Hence, they are distinct offenses for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. (A) and (B) are incorrect because the Supreme Court does not use a "same transaction" or "same episode" test suggested by these answer choices; instead, the Blockburger test is used regardless of whether the two offenses were tried together at a single trial or at separate trials. (D) is incorrect because while double jeopardy also protects against inconsistent factual determinations at a subsequent trial, it protects against multiple prosecutions as well, as long as the crime is the "same offense.")

A canine sniff of a person must be supported by ____________________ and a canine search of a place must be supported by ____________________. A Reasonable suspicion; probable cause. B A warrant; probable cause. C Reasonable suspicion; a warrant. D Probable cause; reasonable suspicion.

D (A canine sniff of a person must be supported by probable cause and a canine search of a place must be supported by reasonable suspicion. A warrant is not required for either canine search. A canine sniff requires the stronger showing of probable cause, but the lesser showing of only reasonable suspicion can be used to support a canine search of a place because the search is inherently less intrusive than the canine sniff of a person.)

When a defendant engages in dilatory conduct by failing to seek and retain private counsel, despite having the opportunity and finances to do so: A The court may appoint private counsel, for whom the defendant will be required to pay. B The court will grant a 14-day extension to allow the defendant a reasonable amount of additional time to retain counsel. C A legal aid attorney will be appointed for the defendant. D The defendant may be ordered to proceed pro se.

D (A defendant may forfeit his right to counsel and be ordered to proceed pro se when he engages in dilatory conduct by failing to seek and retain private counsel, despite having the opportunity and financial wherewithal to do so. When the right to counsel is forfeited, the court will not appoint private counsel, nor will a legal aid attorney be appointed.)

If a police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk a suspect, and the suspect flees during the stop, any contraband discarded is: A Admissible. B Admissible if the officer was attempting to arrest the suspect. C Admissible if the officer in pursuit witnessed the suspect discard the contraband. D Inadmissible.

D (If a police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk a suspect, and the suspect flees, any contraband discarded is inadmissible. Even if the suspect flees, if the officer did not have reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and frisk, any discarded contraband is considered the fruit of an illegal seizure. This evidence is always inadmissible.)

If the police violate the knock and announce requirement when executing a search warrant, evidence obtained is: A Nonetheless admissible. B Always inadmissible. C Admissible, if there was probable cause. D Inadmissible, absent exigent circumstances.

D (In Pennsylvania, if the police violate the knock and announce requirement when executing a search warrant, evidence obtained is inadmissible, absent exigent circumstances. Because of the heightened privacy requirement in Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, there must be exigent circumstances to forcibly enter premises.)

The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a retrial when: A Prosecutorial conduct, intentional or not, causes the defendant to obtain a mistrial. B The defendant's conviction is overturned because of erroneously admitted evidence. C There is a hung jury. D The prosecutor intentionally undertakes conduct to prejudice the defendant to the point of the denial of a fair trial.

D (The Double Jeopardy Clause contained in Article 1, Section 10, of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits a retrial, not only when prosecutorial misconduct was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial, but also when the conduct of the prosecutor is intentionally undertaken to prejudice the defendant to the point of the denial of a fair trial. Prosecutorial misconduct does not prohibit a retrial unless the conduct was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.)

Acting on a hunch, a police officer went to a young woman's apartment, broke in, and searched it. The officer found exactly what she was looking for under the woman's bed: a sack filled with jewels. The attached note read, "Sweetheart, here are the goods from the estate heist. Your loving boyfriend." It was well known in the community that the woman's boyfriend was a jewel thief. The officer also knew that the estate of a local socialite had been burglarized three days ago. Just as the officer finished reading the note, the woman returned. The officer immediately placed the woman under arrest as an accessory to the estate burglary. Based on the evidence obtained from the woman's apartment, a search warrant was issued for her boyfriend's apartment. The search yielded burglar tools and more jewels from the estate. The boyfriend was immediately arrested and charged with the estate burglary. At the boyfriend's trial for the estate burglary, his attorney files a motion to suppress the evidence consisting of the bag of jewels and note, the tools, and the jewels from the boyfriend's apartment. How should the court rule on the motion? A Grant the motion as to the bag of jewels and note, but deny it as to the evidence found in the boyfriend's apartment. B Grant the motion, because all of this evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree. C Deny the motion, because the police would have caught the boyfriend with the goods eventually. D Deny the motion, because the police had a warrant to search the boyfriend's apartment.

D (The court should deny the motion to suppress because the police had a warrant to search the boyfriend's home. The boyfriend's expectation of privacy extended only to his own home, which was searched under a warrant. He does not have standing to assert a Fourth Amendment claim regarding the search of his girlfriend's apartment because her apartment was not his home, and he did not own it or have a right to possession of it. Thus, (A) is incorrect. Because the boyfriend cannot object to the search that provided the probable cause for the search of his apartment, (B) is also incorrect. (C) is not a valid justification because there is nothing to indicate that the seizure would fall under the "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule.)

A defendant was arrested on suspicion of running an illegal "moonshine" operation. After taking the defendant back to the police station, an officer began questioning the suspect, thinking that his partner had already given the defendant a Miranda warning. The defendant voluntarily confessed to each and every element of the crime. At trial, the defendant took the witness stand and testified on his own behalf, declaring that he was innocent and that a distillery that the officers found at his home belonged to someone else. The prosecution, on cross-examination, produced the confession that the defendant gave concerning his illegal activities. The defense counsel objected to the admission of the confession. How should the court rule on the defendant's objection? A Sustained, because all evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights is inadmissible. B Sustained, because the prosecution did not get permission from the court in advance to use the confession for any purpose. C Overruled, because the prosecution may question the defendant on cross-examination concerning any issue that was brought out in his defense. D Overruled, but the confession should be admitted only for the limited purpose of impeachment.

D (The defendant's objection should be overruled. A confession obtained in violation of Miranda, but otherwise voluntary, can be used for the limited purpose of impeaching a defendant who testifies at trial. In contrast, an involuntary confession cannot be used to impeach. Here, there are no facts to indicate that the defendant's statement was involuntary. Thus, it can be used to impeach the defendant. (A) is too broad a statement. Although a confession obtained in violation of Miranda is inadmissible in the state's case-in-chief as evidence of guilt, as discussed above, such evidence is admissible for limited purposes. (B) is wrong. Advance permission from the court is not a requirement if the confession is used to impeach. (C) is a correct statement but it does not speak directly to the issue of whether the confession is admissible and to what extent.)

Acting on an anonymous telephone call, police went to the defendant's apartment, knocked on the door, and demanded to search it for narcotics. When the defendant refused, the police forced the door open and placed him under arrest. As they were removing him from the apartment, the defendant offered to give the officers "valuable information" in exchange for his release. Before he could say anything else, the defendant was given Miranda warnings by the police. Thereafter, he told the police that he had stored some heroin in his friend's apartment and that he and his friend had been going to sell it. The heroin was recovered, and the defendant was prosecuted for conspiracy to sell narcotics and for possession of narcotics. At his trial, the defendant moved to suppress his statements. Which of the following is the defendant's best argument in support of the motion to suppress? A The defendant is entitled to know the identity of his accuser, and the state cannot supply this information. B The police should have given the defendant Miranda warnings prior to entry into the apartment, and the warnings were ineffectual once the defendant offered to give the police information. C The defendant was intimidated by the forced entry into the apartment, and because the statements were involuntary and coerced, their use against him would violate due process of law. D The statements were fruits of an unlawful arrest, and though the Miranda warnings may have been sufficient to protect his right against self-incrimination, they were not sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal arrest.

D (The entry into the defendant's apartment and his arrest, without a warrant, probable cause, or circumstances permitting an exception from these requirements, were unconstitutional. The statements he made thereafter were fruits of the original unconstitutional arrest and must be suppressed unless the taint was purged. The giving of Miranda warnings was not sufficient. Hence, (D) is the best answer. If probable cause for a warrant is based on information from an informer, usually that informer's identity need not be revealed. Thus, (A) is incorrect. (B) is a misstatement of law. There was no interrogation by the police to trigger the Miranda requirements. (C) is attractive but not as accurate an answer as (D). If the police had been acting with probable cause to arrest, their forced entry into the apartment would not have made the defendant's statements involuntary.)

A farmer was in the middle of plowing his field when his tractor broke down. While attempting to repair it, he discovered that he needed a special wrench. He knew that his neighbor used the same type of tractor and kept a large cache of tools in his basement. Not wanting to make the long drive into town to buy one wrench that he probably would not use much, the farmer went to his neighbor's house to borrow the wrench. However, no one was home so he decided to look in his neighbor's basement for the wrench, thinking that he would return it before the neighbor came back. To gain entry, the farmer opened an unlocked window and climbed through the opening to the basement. Once inside, the farmer found the tool and took it with him to work on the tractor. His neighbor returned soon after and contacted the police when he discovered that one of his tools was missing. The police determined that the farmer took the tool and he was charged with burglary. What is the farmer's best defense against that charge in a common law jurisdiction? A Nobody actually lived in the basement. B The farmer knew that the house was unoccupied and would not have entered without permission had the neighbor been home. C The farmer entered the house through an unlocked window. D The farmer intended only to keep the wrench for a couple of hours.

D (The farmer's best defense is that he intended only to keep the wrench for a couple of hours. Given that the farmer intended merely to borrow the tool, he lacked the intent to commit larceny, and thus would not be guilty of burglary. Common law burglary consists of: (i) a breaking; (ii) and entry; (iii) of the dwelling; (iv) of another; (v) at nighttime; (vi) with the intent of committing a felony therein. The farmer entered his neighbor's house intending to remove the tool. Thus, the facts indicate that the only felony he could have intended to commit at the time of entry would be larceny. Larceny consists of: (i) a taking; (ii) and carrying away; (iii) of tangible personal property; (iv) of another; (v) by trespass; (vi) with intent to permanently (or for an unreasonable time) deprive the person of his interest in the property. At common law, if the defendant intended to return the property within a reasonable time, and at the time of the taking had a substantial ability to do so, such an unauthorized borrowing would not constitute larceny. Consequently, if the farmer intended to keep the tool only for the short time to fix his tractor, then he did not intend to permanently deprive his neighbor of his interest in the wrench. Because the farmer thus lacked the intent to commit a felony in his neighbor's home at the time he entered, the farmer would not be guilty of burglary. (A) is incorrect because, for purposes of the crime of burglary, a structure is deemed to be a dwelling simply if any part of it is used regularly for sleeping purposes. Thus, the fact that nobody lived in the basement is irrelevant. (B) is incorrect because the fact that the house was unoccupied is irrelevant to his culpability for burglary. The crime of burglary would have been complete if the farmer had broken and entered his neighbor's home with the intent of committing a felony therein, regardless of whether the home was currently unoccupied. Consequently, the farmer's knowledge that the house was unoccupied would provide him with no defense to a charge of burglary. (C) is incorrect because the breaking needed for burglary requires only minimal force to gain entry. Opening an unlocked window is a sufficient use of force to constitute a breaking.)

A 12-year-old girl entered a grocery store. When she believed that no one was looking, she grabbed two candy bars and concealed them under her coat. As she attempted to leave the store, a security guard employed by the store grabbed the girl by the arm. He told her, "You're too young to be a thief!" The girl began crying and blurted out, "I lost my lunch money on the way to school and I was really hungry!" If the girl is charged with shoplifting, what is the prosecution's best argument that her Miranda rights have not been violated by the security guard? A The guard's statement was not interrogatory. B It is discretionary whether to give juveniles Miranda warnings. C The girl has not yet been arrested and formally charged with any crime. D The security guard was not a government agent.

D (The prosecution's best argument is that, because the security guard was not a government agent, he need not have given the girl Miranda warnings. As a means of protecting the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination, a person must be informed prior to custodial interrogation that: (i) she has the right to remain silent; (ii) anything she says can be used against her in court; (iii) she has the right to the presence of an attorney; and (iv) if she cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for her if she so desires. These Miranda warnings must be given only if the detainee is being questioned by someone known to be working for the police. Here, the security guard is employed by a private business (the grocery store). Thus, since the guard was not required to inform the girl of the Miranda warnings, he could not possibly have violated the girl's Miranda rights. (A), (B), and (C) all reflect matters that would come into play only if the guard were a government agent. However, they would also be incorrect even if the guard were a government agent. (A) is incorrect because the guard's statement might be deemed to be interrogatory. "Interrogation" refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police that they should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. Although it is not an express question to say "You're too young to be a thief," such words are reasonably likely to bring forth some sort of incriminating response. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the guard's statement was not interrogatory. (B) is incorrect because, in a delinquency proceeding, a juvenile must be afforded the right not to testify, including all aspects of the privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda warnings are a very important aspect of the privilege against self-incrimination. In addition, a juvenile court may determine that a child should be transferred to adult court for trial as an adult on criminal charges. Certainly, in such an instance, the requirement of Miranda warnings would be applicable. Consequently, regardless of whether a child is treated by the courts as a juvenile or an adult, it is incorrect to state that giving the Miranda warnings to juveniles is discretionary. (C) is incorrect because an actual arrest and formal charges are not a prerequisite to triggering the need for Miranda warnings. All that is required is that an interrogation be custodial in nature. An interrogation may be considered custodial if a reasonable person under the circumstances would feel that she is not free to terminate the interrogation and leave. The security guard grabbed the girl by the arm before making his statement. Thus, it could be argued that what followed was custodial interrogation, because the girl did not believe she was free to leave.)

When evaluating the permissibility of an investigative stop, unprovoked flight at the approach of police ____________________ be considered a factor in deciding whether ____________________ existed to justify the stop. A May not; probable cause. B May not; reasonable suspicion. C May; probable cause. D May; reasonable suspicion.

D (When evaluating the permissibility of an investigative stop, unprovoked flight at the approach of the police may be considered a factor in deciding whether reasonable suspicion existed to justify the stop.)

Pennsylvania law does not allow the police to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile after its occupants have been arrested and are in police custody unless ____________________. A The police have probable cause to believe that evidence related to any crime is in the automobile. B There is reasonable suspicion that evidence related to the crime for which the occupants have been arrested is in the automobile. C There are exigent circumstances. D The search is incident to the arrest.

In Commonwealth v. Gary (2014), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the federal automobile exception to the warrant requirement and held that Article I, Section 8 of the state constitution affords no greater protection than the Fourth Amendment when it comes to the warrantless search of automobiles. The court held that police officers may search a vehicle when there is probable cause to do so, and this does not require any exigency "beyond the inherent mobility of a motor vehicle,"